Sea Horse wrote:
I read the gag order (agreement) and a legal question came to mind. If the agmt was signed at a particular time, the gag-agmt would really be for non-disclosure of what happened BEFORE the time of signing. If one party (C of S in this case) continued to commit crimes (of law or morals) after the signing, why should any gag-agmt cover FUTURE INDISCRETIONS from being talked about by the other party (Debbie Cook)?
Methinks that the clauses "or will learn" in 6A and 6B in the non-disclosure agmt is a bit broad. Tho these paragraphs seem broad, there are holes in them.
If you read the NDA, Debbie & Wayne agreed to never speak about Scientology again from the date they signed the agreement, i.e., if they heard of a major crime taking place in the cult yesterday, they can't talk about it.
If the judge focuses on prevailing contract law, he may, personally, find holes in the agreement, but he's going to rule in the case solely on contract law. No judge enjoys seeing their rulings overturned in the appellate court because it makes them look bad, and could hurt their career goals. The judge will look at the case & decide on the merits of the case based strictly on establish precedents in contract law, not on superfluous events that have nothing to do with the signing of this agreement.
I doubt the cult is going to have a problem proving that Wayne & Debbie (especially Debbie) have had years of business experience where they were exposed to & dealt in contracts, so they would be hard put to claim they didn't know what they were signing when they did. The judge could also request they return the $100,000 they took to void the contract. Sounds like from what Debbie has said in emails that she no longer has the blood money.. they spent it.
I'm not a judge, but I suspect the NDA will be accepted as valid by the judge. Either way, the cult or Debbie, will take the case to an appellate court.